Become a Fan

March 29, 2013

Making libertarian lemonade out of gay-marriage lemons

Marriage equality is advancing so quickly that there's no need to find a middle ground, or "third way." It's a done deal in nine states and and will eventually become the American norm.

So it's almost sad to see conservative libertarians try to spin things so that the attainment of civil rights can be used to reduce the size of government and restrict immigration to the US. The National Review's John Fund credits Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker for raising the idea that government shouldn't have anything to do with recognizing marriages, traditional or otherwise. This sounds like a modern, secular position until Fund gets into specifics.

Turning marriage into fundamentally a private right wouldn’t be an easy
task. Courts and government would still be called on to recognize and
enforce contracts that a couple would enter into, and clearly some
contracts — such as in a slave-master relationship — would be invalid.
But instead of fighting over which marriages gain its approval,
government would end the business of making distinctions for the purpose
of social engineering based on whether someone was married. A flatter
tax code would go a long way toward ending marriage penalties or
bonuses. We would need a more sensible system of legal immigration so
that fewer people would enter the country solely on the basis of spousal
rights.

So the deal is: Let's give gays and lesbians equal rights, but as part of a grand bargain that would make the tax code more regressive and make it harder for people to immigrate to America while keeping their families intact. I can see more implications of this deal: no more Social Security or other benefits to surviving spouses, no laws requiring employers to extend health insurance coverage or family leave to spouses, no ability to sue a third party responsible for your spouse's death, etc. I don't know what would happen with child support payments if a couple splits up; I suppose it depends on what's in the not-marriage contract that both parties sign. So even if you still get married in a church, better get a good lawyer to draw up that pre-nup.

This bargain would be a great way to create a backlash against the LGBT community: "If the queers hadn't demanded to get married, you'd still have your Social Security benefits!"

No dice. Gays and lesbians want to strengthen marriage, not destroy it. There's no public support for this wedge-shaped middle ground.